Landmark Supreme Court Case: In re Neagle (1890)
In re Neagle (1890) is the 29th landmark Supreme Court case featured in the KTB Prep American Government and Civics Series designed to acquaint users with the origins, concepts, organizations, and policies of the United States government and political system. The goal is greater familiarization with the rights and obligations of citizenship at the local, state, national, and global levels and the history of our nation as a democracy. While there is overlap, these landmark cases are separated into cases addressing:
- Foreign Policy
- Public Safety
- Death Penalty
- Speech, Press, and Protest
- Criminal Justice
- Politics, Society, Freedom, and Equality
The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Article III of the U.S. Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts. The Constitution elaborated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the Judicial Branch as a whole. Thus, it has been left to Congress and to the Justices of the Court through their decisions to develop the Federal Judiciary and a body of Federal law.
The number of Justices on the Supreme Court changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869. Since the formation of the Court in 1790, there have been only 17 Chief Justices* and 102 Associate Justices, with Justices serving for an average of 16 years. On average a new Justice joins the Court almost every two years.
The Supreme Court of the United States hears about 100 to 150 appeals of the more than 7,000 cases it is asked to review every year. That means the decisions made by the 12 Circuit Courts of Appeals across the country and the Federal Circuit Court are the last word in thousands of cases.
Court of Appeals
In the federal court system’s present form, 94 district level trial courts and 13 courts of appeals sit below the Supreme Court. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals. The appellate court’s task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury.
The appellate courts do not retry cases or hear new evidence. They do not hear witnesses testify. There is no jury. Appellate courts review the procedures and the decisions in the trial court to make sure that the proceedings were fair and that the proper law was applied correctly.
A court of appeals hears challenges to district court decisions from courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies. In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws, and cases decided by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The nation’s 94 trial courts are called U.S. District Courts. At a trial in a U.S. District Court, witnesses give testimony and a judge or jury decides who is guilty or not guilty — or who is liable or not liable. District courts resolve disputes by determining the facts and applying legal principles to decide who is right.
Trial courts include the district judge who tries the case and a jury that decides the case. Magistrate judges assist district judges in preparing cases for trial. They may also conduct trials in misdemeanor cases.
There is at least one district court in each state, and the District of Columbia. Each district includes a U.S. bankruptcy court as a unit of the district court.
Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases involving personal, business, or farm bankruptcy. This means a bankruptcy case cannot be filed in state court. Bankruptcy Appellate Panels (BAPs) are 3-judge panels authorized to hear appeals of bankruptcy court decisions. These panels are a unit of the federal courts of appeals, and must be established by that circuit. Five circuits have established panels: First Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Tenth Circuit.
In re Neagle (1890)
In re Neagle Facts:
Suspecting a plot against Justice Stephen J. Field’s life, the U.S. Attorney General appointed U.S. Marshal David Neagle to serve as Justice Stephen J. Field’s bodyguard while Field rode circuit in California. On August 14, 1889, David S. Terry approached Field inside the Lathrop, California train station in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Terry, a former California Supreme Court justice, had a grudge with Field.
Fearing Terry was about to attack Field, Neagle shot and killed Terry. Field and Neagle were arrested by the San Joaquin Sheriff, Thomas Cunningham. Cunningham later released Field on his own recognizance but took Neagle to jail.
The United States Attorney in San Francisco filed a writ of habeas corpus for Neagle’s release. The circuit court issued the writ after a hearing and ordered Neagle’s release. Sheriff Cunningham, with the aid of the State of California, appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Q: Was the state obligated to obey the writ even though no national statute empowered the Attorney General to provide judges with bodyguards?
A: Yes. The Court held that the Attorney General acted appropriately since assigning Neagle as Field’s bodyguard assured that the nation’s laws would be faithfully executed.
In re Neagle Conclusion
6-2 (Field abstained for obvious reasons) ruling Section 3 of Art. II of the U.S. Constitution requires that the Executive Branch “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The court determined that the appointment of bodyguards to Supreme Court Justices ensured the faithful execution of the law of the United States. The court also relied on a statute granting marshals “the same powers, in executing the laws of the United States, as sheriffs and their deputies in such State may have, by law, in executing the laws thereof.”
In affirming the lower court, the court recognized that, as the source of all Executive authority, the president could act in the absence of specific statutory authority since there were no laws that provided for protection of federal judges by the Executive branch. Constitutionally, the decision determined that the Executive branch exercised its own “necessary and proper” authority.
Next Case: United States v. E.C. Knight Company (1895)
Previous Case: Kidd v. Pearson (1888)